Kovaleva T. V. and others. History foreign literature(Second half of the 19th - early 20th century)

T. V. Kovaleva. Belgian literature (late 19th - early 20th century)

T. V. Kovaleva. Belgian literature (late 19th - early 20th century)

General review.

At the end of the 19th century, Belgian literature emerged as one of the world's leading literatures. This rapid rise in artistic creativity was the direct result of the grandiose breakdown of the entire social structure that took place in Belgium, when, according to E. Verhaern, "everything is moving - the horizons are on the way." In two decades, the country has turned from a peasant, patriarchal into a powerful industrial and colonial power (the capture of the Congo in 1884). In a short time, the Belgian proletariat was formed, which soon declared itself through mass revolutionary actions (the strikes of 1884, the miners' strikes of 1886-1891, the general political strike of 1893, etc.).

At the same time, the rapid growth of industry, which required an influx of labor, led to a significant reduction in the rural population, the ruin of the countryside, and the impoverishment of the peasants. Belgium was becoming a country of sharp social contrasts.

"Belgium is agricultural and industrial, conservative and Catholic - and at the same time socialist, she is rich and she is poor. Enormous fortunes accumulate in big cities, while ... in the mines or in peasant huts people eke out a miserable existence ... "- testified S. Zweig.

The literary process in Belgium at the turn of the century reflected the complexity of its socio-political and spiritual life. Before Belgian literature, which powerfully declared itself already in 1867 with the "Legend of Ulenspiegel" by Charles de Coster, the primary task was to "become yourself", that is, to acquire originality, the ability to deeply and accurately reflect the national specifics of the country and its spirit people.

"To understand Belgian conditions, to think in Belgian - that's what is needed," the theorist of democratic art in Belgium said at the time. E. Picard(1836 - 1924). This goal was not hindered by the fact that the most significant Belgian artists (Ch. de Coster, E. Verhaern, M. Maeterlinck, J. Rodenbach) wrote their works in French, and not in Flemish (the second state language of Belgium). On the contrary, exactly French helped them overcome narrow provincialism and join the rich literary traditions of the neighboring country, brought them to the world stage, which did not prevent them from remaining at the same time truly national writers.

An exceptional role in the development of Belgian literature was played by the magazine "Young Belgium" (1881 - 1897), at first uniting around itself all those who fought for its renewal, sought to "be themselves", "follow new trends". However, already in the mid-80s. in the movement of the "young" there was a split, the result of which was, on the one hand, the formation of "social art", i.e. realism, and on the other hand, the establishment of "art outside of time", "the art of self-expression", which opened the way for symbolism, aesthetic movements end of the century.

The largest representative of "social art" was Camille Lemonnier(1844-1913), in whose work "the history of the struggle and suffering of the people" was fully reflected. In his numerous works (he is the author of more than 70 volumes of novels, stories, short stories), the writer gave a wide panorama public life Belgium at its turning point: the ruin and degeneration of the patriarchal village (the story "Death", 1878; the novels "In one of the village corners", 1879; "Male", 1880); rapid industrialization and the ruthless exploitation of workers associated with it (the novel Ticks, 1886); the moral degradation of the bourgeoisie (the novel The End of the Bourgeois, 1892); the disintegration of the family and the perversion of all natural human ties ("Allali", 1906). The critical reproduction of the modern era was combined in Lemonnier with a naturalistic concept of man, explaining his character and actions by the action of biological (heredity, instincts, environment), and not social factors.

So, in the novel "Ticks" two plans coexist: the social one - the image of a capitalist factory, the "ticks" of exploitation, the war of "labor and capital", and the physiological one - a "case history" main character Clarinets, whose pathological depravity is explained by the fact that she "grew up among the debauchery of her mother, under the curses of her drunken father." Such a principle of artistic recreation of reality makes us remember the author of "Rougon-Macquart", and it is not for nothing that critics called Lemonnier "Belgian Zola".

In terms of the humanistic and democratic orientation of creativity, Lemonnier is close and Georges Ecode(1854 - 1927). In his works ("Kees Doorik", 1883; "New Carthage", 1888; novels "From the World former people", "Village", collection of stories "Kermessa", 1884; "My Communion", 1895, etc.) we find a vivid opposition of bourgeois civilization and "nature", town and village. All the writer's sympathies are given to the "humiliated and insulted" - the poor - a peasant who embodies for him the ideal of a "natural person" and therefore externally and internally beautiful; tramps and vagabonds, a free and proud spirit, towering over the gray and vulgar world of the bourgeois. organic compound romantic and realistic beginnings: his main character, an exceptional personality, "fatally misunderstood", always lonely, acts, as a rule, in the specific historical conditions of Belgium late XIX century. There is an undoubted inner relationship between the work of the Belgian writer and the romantic works of the young Gorky, whose talent he never ceased to admire.

One of the brightest manifestations of "asocial", "timeless" art was Belgian symbolism, which grew up on the basis of the rejection of bourgeois civilization and the idealization of the patriarchal past and was closely associated with French symbolism. "Our symbolism had two parents - Verlaine and Mallarme," declared its theorist A. Mokel(1866 - 1945). However, Belgian symbolism had its own specifics: being more of a worldview than a literary form, it acquired a religious and mystical coloring.

In its most complete form, it was represented Georges Rodenbach(1855 - 1898), singer of "silence and death". Devoted to the religious idea of ​​the goodness of death, which "is the fulfillment of every person's dream," in numerous works (collection "Bright Youth", 1896; novel "Bell Ringer", 1897, etc.) poeticized "pernicious love for non-existence", dying, fading , "agonizing cities". Thus, Rodenbach's most famous novel bears the expressive title "Dead Bruges" (1892). Here, the image of the medieval Belgian city of Bruges with its crumbling houses, deserted streets, dead water of canals, the battle of "tired, slow, as if suppressed by old age bells" of many churches and monasteries, a specific range of gray, faded colors - acts as if a symbol of non-existence, something "mysterious and invisible" and at the same time is a "landscape of the soul" of the author himself, his disappointment, fatigue, disgust for life. All this makes the novel "Dead Bruges" a characteristic work of decadent literature of the end of the century.

Maurice Maeterlinck

Maurice Maeterlinck (1862 - 1949)- the largest theorist and playwright of symbolism, the creator of the "theatre of death", "Belgian Shakespeare", as his contemporaries called him.

He was born in Ghent, the ancient city of East Flanders, in the family of a notary. He received his initial education at a Jesuit college, which left a noticeable mark on his worldview in the form of "Flemish mysticism". After his graduation, Maeterlinck studied law in Paris, but his studies in jurisprudence did not bring satisfaction, as he dreamed of literary work.

In 1883, the first poems were published in the magazine "Young Belgium" young poet, testifying to the strong influence of French symbolism on him. In 1889, the lyrical collection "Greenhouses" and the play "Princess Malene" were published, which became the starting point for the formation of Maeterlinck's symbolist aesthetics and poetics. Their most complete presentation was contained in the essay "Treasures of the Humble" (1896), as well as in the preface to the three-volume edition of the plays (1901), articles of the 90s.

The philosophical basis of the artistic views of the Belgian playwright was idealism, and in its mystical version. Maeterlinck replaced the Catholic God with a faceless and fatal Unknown, ruling the world and hostile to man. It is everywhere and often takes the form of death, but is not limited to it. In the face of the omnipotent Unknown, people are only weak and pitiful creatures, "fragile and random glimmers, given without a visible purpose in the breath of an indifferent night." Man, being the receptacle of the Unknown, must live "without work, without thought, without light." And most importantly - without a word, because it is impossible to express in words the inexpressible, the "secret": "True life is created in silence." Thus, Maeterlinck's "theater of silence" became a kind of artistic illustration of his philosophy.

Tatyana Mikhailovna Kovaleva. Our report will consist of two parts and we will do it together with Natalia Rybalkina. We will try to discuss technologies and the process of technologization in education. At the same time, I will try to discuss in a framework where the tasks of technologization in education come from and how these processes take place there. Well, and then I will touch upon an individual approach, individualization. And Natasha will talk about technologies in open education who claim to grasp the process of individuation.

Since several definitions of “technology” have already been given, I would like to start by saying that for me technology is associated, firstly, with the characteristic of the reproducibility of the process and, secondly, with the fact that a directly specified result is achieved. There are three important points: reproducibility, the result that I set, and the achievement of this result (the result in operational form). I would not delve further, because this is not a methodical lecture. And if there are questions later, it can be discussed.

The first moment: when we introduce the concept of “technology” into the field of education and somehow try to work with it, then a line of discussion of methodology, didactics, technology immediately arises, because everything is connected. In general, our didacticists are very opposed to "technology", they say - what kind of new concept is this? Didactics and methodology claimed almost the same. But based on what was already said yesterday, we can immediately try to spread this field. Since technologies do not lie somewhere naturally, but this is a technological view (since didactics is, roughly speaking, a theory of learning). And technologically, you can look at didactics and methodology. And if we imagine didactics as a sphere, as a theory of learning, then this sphere is really technologized - somewhere there are problems, but somewhere there are pieces that are not technologized, holes. It is much more interesting to discuss the question: where did the task of technologization in education come from? I am the director of the Center for Educational Technologies. This is a structure that now lives an independent life, but was created under the auspices of the Soros Foundation. The initial task was to select the most interesting and advanced technologies in the world and implement them in Russia (further it is necessary to explain what it means with points of view headquarters of the Soros Foundation efficient technologies). Our group, having a series of discussions with Soros, nevertheless came to the conclusion that we were not interested in managing even on such high level. And in this sense, if Soros is interested in promoting Western technologies to us, then we would like to formalize our experience in the form of technologies and also present it to the West. And now the Center claims that it works in international programs on a parity basis. And the versions of the process of technologization in education are connected with this. Thus, one version is connected with the fact that in different time experience accumulates in education. The category of pedagogical experience is the basic category for discussing something in pedagogy. In this regard, not technology, but experience. Well, it's understandable that when teachers and directors work at a school, experience is accumulated. And when the task arises to somehow convey this experience: for example, to write a book about it so that it can be reproduced somehow, it becomes necessary to technologize some pieces, which, perhaps, are proto-forms of technology, or maybe I just want to move them from one place to another so that they can be played in another team. And this whole area of ​​work - the completion of experience in pedagogy - this is one version of how you can start discussing technologization in education. Shchedrovitsky(?). Once again, can this line? How are technology and experience related? Kovaleva. Experience is generally by-effect meaningful work. So I'm starting to teach mathematics, I have three fifth grades. I start teaching the multiplication of fractions in one, in the second, in the third ... Children even grasp faster when they explain to each other. They say: you see, plus on a minus - there will be a minus. And so on. That is, a person, a teacher who works for a year, two, three in different classes, has something that helps him to work more productively. I call it experience. Now, where does the task of technologization come from? For a long time we tried to pull this experience up to its formalization into technology. But it was an illusion. Now, even for the pedagogical class, it is clear that the very task of technologization does not appear from within pedagogy - it appears from the framework of management. And if now the manager needs for some reason that this experience is reproduced, transmitted, perceived by others, then it turns out (and on this occasion one can give a bunch of examples and anecdotes) that, firstly, the person himself cannot reflect his experience (that is, , he can do it, but he cannot understand why he does it, whether others will do it and whether they will succeed). In this sense, the experience must be "purified", alienated from this person. It may turn out that there are holes in this experiment or that some structures must be built there. And there is work to complete the experience in technology. In this regard, sometimes even the technology itself is not in the pedagogical context. For example, we discussed such an amazing case: a teacher primary school, who was illiterate, third-graders wrote dictations best of all. It was unique case no one could understand it. Then it turned out that the parents, when they received the diaries for the first time, in which the teacher wrote “Request to come to the meeting,” understood that things were bad, called up and started home dictations in parallel with the children. Well, what to do? And as a result, this led to the fact that children gave one hundred percent literacy. Here is the technology reflected from this experience. Shchedrovitsky. So it's still introduced to the masses? Kovaleva. Introduced to the masses. Shchedrovitsky. Where is the transition from experience to technology, except for a change of frame? Kovaleva. We have this version: you cannot jump from experience into technology on your own. Gromyko discussed this move, and he believes that if you start working with a teacher, turning him around, then the teacher begins to analyze this category of experience. What I called technology is a process made up of certain operations, an operational result, to which I am going. Gromyko discusses special methods of work, how to bring teachers to this point. Shchedrovitsky. Gromyko will come, we will ask him. Once again, how the transition from experience to technology is carried out. Kovaleva. People come who know how to work with the material in order to get technology out of it. Shchedrovitsky. Unclear. It is like referring to the unknown while explaining the unknown. Here, suppose there is experience, suppose it is even somehow reflected, how does it acquire a technological form or does technology arise? Kovaleva. I accept the question. I'm not prepared to discuss it specifically. Shchedrovitsky. Wow! This is the theme of the school. How are you doing pedagogical technologies from experience arrays? Your own, someone else's, reflected, unreflected? Kovaleva. We do not set a task in this regard, we are already recruiting what claims to be technology. Shchedrovitsky. And how do you distinguish? How do you distinguish that you are gaining technology, and not some other array of non-technological experience? Rybalkina. Guzeev offers an answer. In order to translate the experience into technology, at the beginning, the experience is described, then with this description, how several people work with the prescription, look, reflect all the results, choose an invariant from them ... Kovaleva. Natasha shows the version in a technical frame. Shchedrovitsky. That's for me *. Because I generally believe that almost everything in mental activity appears with the participation of reflection. I don't understand how this experience is described in order to get a technology and not something else. Kovaleva. Do you need a technical answer? Shchedrovitsky. Of course I want to understand. Experience can be different. And these didactics, they tell you right. Since you said that this is technology, it means that this is some other way of working with pedagogical experience than, for example, methodical. Which? Kovaleva. Well, you can go this way. But we had a theme, it is also important for me to withstand it. I wanted to discuss in a framework where the tasks of technologization are, how they arise. And you want to discuss technically how experience becomes technology. But this is one version, but there is another, more curious one. Shchedrovitsky. What do you mean by technology? I thought that by technologization you mean the transition from experience to technology. Kovaleva. Yes. Shchedrovitsky. Then we discuss it. We wanted to discuss technologization. Kovaleva. I wanted to discuss sources. Shchedrovitsky. You said "the frame is changing and from the frame of reproduction pedagogical activity we are moving into a management framework.” But this is not enough. This is a necessary but not sufficient condition. In the end, we have changed the framework and in the same framework of governance we are discussing the economics of education, not technology. Kovaleva. There is experience. So, first, this experience is on some specific carrier, on a specific group. This experience is reflected by man. Then we look at how this experience is reproduced in other groups, by the same person. This, for example, was captured in the forms open lessons. In the author's school of open lessons, it was considered as follows: if you have a technology, you can spend it anywhere. Here, you spent in Tomsk, and now you have come to Sakhalin, you see a class for the first time - come out and see them off. Shchedrovitsky. Is it possible to describe this problem of reproducibility on other groups somehow in other representations? What does reproducibility on other groups mean? And if it is not reproducible on other groups? And if on some it is reproducible, but on others it is not reproducible? What is the task here? What must be separated from in order for technology to emerge? Rybalkina. From the individual characteristics of the one whose experience was. Kovaleva. No. Separation from the individual characteristics of the one to whom this process is directed. Maybe it is only on these children that it is reproducible with this teacher. Replica. I think that technology is a separation from the master, it is an alienation. Kovaleva. No. Two different alienations. Then already alienation from the master, but for now alienation from the group. Before Shatalov alienated his own technology from himself as a master and passed it on to his students, he alienated the groups he worked for for three years. Thus, if technology is an operationally built process for a predetermined result, then I now see if I a completely different group of children to build the same process and get the same operationally specified result. Shchedrovitsky. Let me give you a counter example. I have a technology for organizing an organizational activity game. A certain contingent comes to the organizational activity game. And by the end of the first day of the game, 30% of the participants are eliminated. And there are those that are suitable for my technology. Have I produced, as you say, "alienation" from those who are targeted by the technology? Kovaleva. When you do it on different groups, do you always get 30% cut out? Shchedrovitsky. I do it on different groups and I always get 30% off. Kovaleva. The first stage - yes. Shchedrovitsky. In this sense, I can tell you that there is no alienation from the one to whom it is directed. There is a selection of those who correspond to my technology. Kovaleva. No, it's a little different here. If you have a random sample... Shchedrovitsky. I have a random sample. But now, looking into the audience, I can almost say with absolute certainty who will drop out. Kovaleva. But that's not all, we went step by step. Every technology has its limits. Because if the boundaries are extremely wide, then everything around will be technology. If narrow, then you will find out that not a single technology can be built. So, these boundaries need to be fixed. And at this first stage, when you change groups, you understand that if you look at the organizational game as a technology, then, roughly speaking, what is its resolution? Because it turns out that in working with the organizational activity game, for example, with the first composition of the ShKP, in this way, and now you have moved to another group, there has been a generational change and now you all fly out to one. And you can say, either you have some kind of problem with the boundaries of technology, or technology has ceased to be technology here. Shchedrovitsky. Do you understand the difference between the alienation of the operational composition from the object of influence and the alienation of part of the objects of influence from the operational composition? Is there a difference between the two situations? From my point of view, there is. Because the technology really has a certain resolution and everything that does not fit into it in terms of material is eliminated. Rybalkina. Your example already leads to the need to introduce a typology of technologies. Shchedrovitsky. No. Because from my point of view, you are confusing the institutional form of the school, where you cannot expel students, and the technological form of organization. Now go back and tell me why you alienate what. Kovaleva. Then at the beginning there will be the first move - the experience is described, reflected and alienated from the bearer of experience. For me it was the second step, please, it can be done first. Vyacheslav Leonidovich. I want to understand what does it mean for experience to be alienated from its bearer? Alienated what? Rybalkina. So someone else can use this technology. Replica. In natural science reality, the category of experience is characterized by the fact that experience can be reproduced in any situation and everywhere, if the same conditions are met. Experience as one of the tools for the production of scientific knowledge... Shchedrovitsky. Are you confusing experience with experiment? Kovaleva. You will now add your version, but where will this move us? Replica. Setting up a physical experiment, a chemical experiment ... Shchedrovitsky.... the experiment simulates artificial conditions in which a certain process is reproduced, and it is by no means the material that adjusts to a specific task. It changes the framework conditions. And in this sense, it must be reproducible - when creating standard conditions, the process must proceed in a standard way. Replica. And in this sense, the experiment turns into experience. Shchedrovitsky. I don't know, I think they are opposite categories. Replica. Opposite, but at the moment when the experiment does not add new knowledge, but begins to confirm the compliance of this situation with certain life standards, it becomes an experience. In physics, if you experiment with electricity or something else, you will get the same result every time. And people learn from this experience. This is an experience alienated from the individual bearer and really taken out of pure knowledge. Unlike experiment. Replica 2. This is the weak version. Replica. I do not understand what is weak, strong ... Shchedrovitsky. You use the word "experience" in a completely different context, experience as experience. Kovaleva. Vyacheslav Leonidovich, I would answer this way, what is the alienation of experience. I immediately began to discuss this on the material of education. When the task is set of the sequence of performing certain operations, which allows you to achieve the same, predetermined result. Shchedrovitsky. This is a technique. Your opponents are correct. Kovaleva. I already tried to answer this. And the technique is technologized. What is the contradiction here? If I look technologically, then I see certain technologies in the methodology. Methodology as a field of knowledge is also technologized. Shchedrovitsky. And I'm just fixing that for you this concept is superfluous. You don't really use it. Kovaleva. Firstly, why is it not the same thing - because the methodology comprehends itself from the space of education, and technology - from the framework of management. Shchedrovitsky. This is the only thing I understood. I did not understand further. From the fact that we have moved into the management frame, the technology has not yet appeared. There could be a lot of other things. Well, for example, you can eventually concentrate on teaching teachers and teach them better. Kovaleva. Well, there is also such a task ... Shchedrovitsky. Yes, but it is not clear what this has to do with technology and technologization. Kovaleva. Then problematize the definition I give. It is not contradictory. Shchedrovitsky. In this regard, I have already problematized, because I pointed out to you a different point of view, using the example of Ilya (?). Moreover, I even expressed a strong thesis, what is your problem - you did not distribute the institutional form. You said that it was in the control frame, but you did not draw a conclusion. What conclusion should be drawn? The conclusion is that when we come to the management framework, the institutional form that did not allow dropping out of school is no good. It is fundamentally non-technological. Technological can manifest itself only when we can expel from the class, and this requires a different institutional form. Kovaleva. But Kamensky's project is technologized. Shchedrovitsky. No. Kovaleva. What does no mean? It is reproduced. Shchedrovitsky. No. It is reproduced, but this is - see my answer to Aksenov. Because this is the category of the sixth floor, and he somehow connected all this with reproduction, and methodology, and culture - and no technology was needed. And the representatives of the methodical approach are right, because you must answer in a completely different frame. You keep thinking that the institutional core is the school. And in school you will never have technology. Technologies are already possible in a different institutional environment, where people come to get a certain result (note: they come!). You do not get a certain result, but the student comes to the class to get a certain result with you. And since you don’t have such institutional conditions… Kovaleva. Well, besides the school, we have more ... We are the education sector. Shchedrovitsky. … you have an institutional frontier in the way of technologization. Rybalkina. The school itself is a technology, because it allows you to bring innovations there. within this technology. Shchedrovitsky. So everything in the world is technology. Rybalkina. With us, and so everything in the world can be technology. Haven't you heard the story? Shchedrovitsky. No, I didn't hear, I listened to something else. Kovaleva. It can be more accurate then to say that when we talk about technology, there are technologies in the narrow sense, and in the broad sense. What you are saying is technology in a strict, basic sense. And there are also technologies, as Oleg Igorevich said, handicraft ones. At the level of such technologies, too ... Shchedrovitsky. And why do we need this? What does this give us? Kovaleva. You might not need to. But since we are discussing on the basis of education, there are also some developments there. Some parts of the methodology are screwed up to technology, some are not. And Kraevsky's thinking grasps why technology is needed at school. I can take your point of view, say that the school is not that institutional form, it does not see technology at all, we discard it and move on to a new institutional form of individual educational programs. But I agonize over the school's potential... Shchedrovitsky. You do what you want - suffer there. What does this have to do with the case? Kovaleva. Such that there are also technologies, narrow technologies. Shchedrovitsky. Then let's discuss what the task of technologization itself means. What is being technologized and what is alienating from? In this sense, did you think the thesis was transparent? If everyone can do it with everyone, here is the technology for you. No, it has nothing to do with technology. Rybalkina. It was about ways to create technology of a certain scale ... Shchedrovitsky. My objection is that this is a fundamentally false view, technologization does not happen that way. Anything you want happens - degradation, destruction of education, something else, use any words. But technologization will not arise along this path. Rybalkina. ... Comenius created a technology that lasted three centuries ... Shchedrovitsky. It is very good that you say so, but, from my point of view, Comenius did not create any technology. Kovaleva. Even then, such a moment. And who then said that we now have the second wave of the innovation movement, which began to engage in technologization, because we have a transition from projects to technologies. Shchedrovitsky. Well, I started to work. Kovaleva. So what did she start doing if you say that this method has nothing to do with technology? Shchedrovitsky. Well, I hope that you will continue to move in this direction. In the meantime, I want to understand where it is - the transition point from methodology to technology. Glazychev, after all, also spoke difficultly. He said: in general, this is a technique - right? Glazychev. Yes Yes. Shchedrovitsky. Here is the technique, and here is the technology and the fixed edge of the transition. He said that in general the social organization of technology is important there, that the methodological part can be included in the concept of technologization, but does not exhaust it. What else is there? What does "important social organization" mean? Kovaleva. Organization of space, focusing... These are reflected things. The methodology also sets the focus of the teacher, how the teacher teaches. And it is important how the whole learning process works, what children do, in what space they are. And the comprehensibility of this whole process, the sequence of operations leading to the desired result - it is precisely the technology. In this regard, some strong methods have been twisted into technology, without even calling themselves that. Waldorf school is a technology, it even takes into account what color the walls in the classroom should be painted, and that there is not a single sharp corner until a certain age. What is this technique? Methodology is what and how the teacher says. Shchedrovitsky. Can we move from examples to concepts? Can we say what are the stages of technologization? I understood about the walls, about sharp corners Same. Here's how we can now implement it on a new example, and not where it has already been implemented? Kovaleva. In this spread, in the first, right? Shchedrovitsky. Tell me in the one that interests you, which you thought about ... Kovaleva. In this respect, work with the category of experience covers more than a methodical focus. Because when there is a reflection of experience, it includes the focus of the teacher, and the focus of students, and the focus of spatial characteristics, both age-related and regional - here you just need to describe further technically. The specialists who do this, they know it all. Therefore, when alienation begins, when I, as the author, the bearer of some experience, alienate it from myself, I skip the methodology at that moment. There is not only a methodical focus. Glazychev: There is no technology in the Waldorf School. Shchedrovitsky: It's the same as with Comenius. Kovaleva. With examples it is always like this - one has one interpretation, the other has another. Glazychev: There is an ideologeme, there is a set of techniques, but there is no technology there. It is fundamentally anti-technological. Kovaleva. Well, yes. This is one version. Shchedrovitsky. What is "yes"? It is not necessary so: version-version. It's very easy to explain everything. Concepts must be built! Rybalkina. Not one, but three ways of technologization. One is from experience, the second is from a scientific object (first we build an object, a technology project, and then we implement it), the third is connected with projects that come from an individual participant. Kovaleva. Vyacheslav Leonidovich, I have a question for you then. What do you lack to think of the example of the Valdor(?) school as a technology? Glazychev: I don't want to repeat what I said. The object called school in the Soviet-Russian tradition (by no means the only one, as you know) is not technologized. Kovaleva. The Waldorf school, firstly, was not set in the Soviet-Russian tradition. Glazychev: The Waldorf school is not technologized in principle, because it comes from a completely different doctrine - the doctrine of soft, ... about creativity and other nonsense. Kovaleva. And what about the doctrine? This is Steiner, his personal matter, his anthropological project - soft, about this, about that, about the soul of a child. And then came a group of philosophers who for thirty years built a very rigid mechanism and made schools. Moreover, these schools in Mozambique and Hannover are no different. Vyacheslav Leonidovich. I made a sample reproduced by permanent groups in exactly the same form. This does not mean that it is a technology. Kovaleva. Then you need to understand how the model differs from the technology. Shchedrovitsky. Vyacheslav Leonidovich, what would be the technology in this area? Glazychev: From my point of view, the process of evaluating results is being technologized. And today there is something alienated from the very nature of the school in the form of copying the system of tests - the unified exam is in this respect a technological construct. And this exam is, according to the plan, the gateway to the university - to allow or not to allow. This is outside of the school itself. Shchedrovitsky. Do you remember the examples that Vyacheslav Leonidovich gave. He said that technology is a calendar. And in the same frame, he answers that what is being technologized is product evaluation. The system of tests (as you remember, eliminated as a pedagogical perversion in the system of NarKomPros) is the only experience of technologization that was unsuccessful for Russia, successful for America, and half successful for England. Neklessa. The point is that the technology concept, is directed to a certain conclusion. And there it reads as follows. This is the sum of operations aimed at achieving some result. The sum of operations, well formulated (?), alienated from the creators and applied in variant (?) conditions. This understanding of technology in Russia, as I see it, is subject to constant criticism. Because this understanding of technology has developed within a culture different from ours. All this culture has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. The understanding of Technology that has developed within the framework of one culture, within the framework of another culture, will be criticized all the time. What could be an alternative understanding of technology? This understanding will ignore two elements (at least reduce their importance, because it is not possible to completely ignore them). This is the moment of formalization and the moment of alienation. There will be personalization. This is what is observed in Russian culture. That is, there is another source of social creativity, although it is extremely unrefined. This source has its own language of culture, within the framework of this language a septenary understanding of technology is created, on the surface it operates with descriptions taken from the experience of Western European culture, but all the time it introduces two distortions, changes that reduce the degree of formalization and the degree of alienation. Shchedrovitsky. It's all great. And is it possible from your point of view education, training, education? Where and how can the concept of technology and technologization be applied? Do you agree, for example, that the Kamensky system or the Waldorf school is technology? Neklessa. Here we have one more nuance. The fact is that the concept of technology is very well reflected in relation to the material sphere of life. In the humanities, the turn that I have designated as a cultural turn manifests itself on a different axis of coordinates. But in a sense, this is the same twist. What's happening? All time is running we have a discussion of two concepts: "technology" and "experience". Because "experience" serves here to designate a different technological tree, which has not yet been spelled out in this capacity. Because these recipes themselves contradict the canons of an alternative culture, which is more manifested in the humanitarian sphere. Simplifying this whole construction, I want to say that in the field A - humanitarian creativity, and B - Russian humanitarian creativity, the share of personalism, direct experience is very strong, which manifests itself in a much more flexible way than with the formal understanding of the word "technology". Now a difficult problem arises. What I'm talking about can be called an "atechnological approach", meaning that manufacturability is understood as a completely specific language in the form in which it has developed. And the same thing can be called "a different technological approach", called "technology". Yesterday, it seems, the problem of the dispute was that 70% is the problem of the dispute. That is, semantic corruption: one source understands one thing in the * semantic construction, the other perceives something else. Meaning is lost on the verge of interaction between two individuals. And I want to say that the Russian approach of the humanities can be called a special technology, but can be called a non-technological approach… Shchedrovitsky. Third try. And in the field of education, training and education, from your point of view, is technology and technologization possible? And if so, where? Neklessa. It is possible, in fact, everywhere. Because the social text has such an interesting property - it maintains itself in a constructive state all the time. That is, it acts as a kind of methodological chimera (without any pejorative connotation). This property of the social text is to tighten the social framework. Therefore, before the crisis, technologies arise, these technologies begin to be analyzed in depth, it is necessary to identify the features of chimerism (as if something was taken from there and from there). But it's a very valid concept that works. With some disadvantages, with some advantages - like any technology. That is why I now use the word "technology" badly in order not to introduce this whole patchwork complex. That is, to give (?) technology and a better assessment of the originality of this technology, some special moments, describe, and this will be a very effective form. Shchedrovitsky. Well, Oleg Igorevich, do you want to comment on the situation? Genisaret. I see the compulsive imposition of a certain view of technology and remember when it started. If we take the 20s, then this is the emergence of production, functionalism and other phenomena in the field of artistic culture, design, and, in particular, the design of education. Then functionalism was introduced everywhere and they began to look for these technologies everywhere. But the transfer, characteristic of industrial culture, to the sphere in conditions of conditional massification of this technological view - it was known in this system * organization for conveyor production. Where else? From the military, and so on. And the innovative school that emerged in the 60s diplomatically repeats the unrealized project of the 20s. And for some reason, we repeat this story for the third time in the conditions of the 90s - again technologization. I see some socio-cultural obsession in this. An unrealized unfinished project is trying to realize itself, although many changes have taken place during this time. And, in essence, what Tatiana notes is - leave that form alone. Shchedrovitsky. Does she note? Genisaret. Yes, she notes. She notes for herself as a manager, where we have only just approached this technological view. I'm ready to talk about technology, but as an educator and representative of the school, I've already been convinced over these 60 or 100 years that these games do not work. And it didn't work twice. And then I continue: they did not work in management, because they did not work in other areas. But it is necessary in this regard to promote some things, to force development. As Yakobson liked to say, "to sow the reasonable, the good, the eternal, but by all means by violent methods." And since it is necessary to urge on development, we use mannerizing (?) * speech. And we are trying to represent all this as production, and hence the whole set of ideas with *, with technologies, with all management, with *, with markets ... Shchedrovitsky. But in fact, this is not production, but the sphere of free creativity of women without education at an average age of 40 years. Genisaret. An institution that ascends God knows where and is recreated... Shchedrovitsky. So I say, but in general this is not a sphere of production, but a sphere of creativity of older women without special education. Genisaret. …what kind of production is this? It's a metaphor. It's like saying that reproduction is a metaphor... Shchedrovitsky. Well, and in general, what can you say ... Genisaret. ... the same person, Georgy Petrovich Shchedrovitsky, worked for ***, studied *, artificial languages, and from there studied pedagogy. There was such a gluing - a construct of natural and artificial was formed. And they began to look at the work at school ... you need to somehow urge, to screw up the situation. Shchedrovitsky. Well, actually, you don't have to. Genisaret. Necessary! Because you are, so to speak, developers. * Positioned himself as a pro-development, so you have to screw up. Kovaleva. At that moment… Shchedrovitsky. The position is incomprehensible, the position floats all the time. Either you need to screw up, then you don’t need to screw up. Genisaret. …if you are nominated as a progressive* and professional revolutionary… Shchedrovitsky. Who are you talking about? Genisaret. about someone who is not theoretical, that is, like a parrot ... Shchedrovitsky. Who is this about? Genisaret. In this case, everyone who repeats the word "production" in relation to the school, work as parrots. And sometimes it's helpful... Shchedrovitsky. I realized that this is not really a production area where a certain social product is created, which can be measured by participants from both sides ... Genisaret. … a means, an end, a product… Shchedrovitsky. Listen, you tell me about education. This is an area in which some irresponsible people interact with other irresponsible people without any commitment to the product. Right? Genisaret. … overlaying activities on top of each other is an understandable moment. It is not for nothing that they say "management culture", not "culture of creativity" ... Shchedrovitsky. Your position is floating. Genisaret. No, my position is clear. There are good parrots and there are bad parrots. Some know three words, others thirty. Kovaleva. It's good to be a parrot, but not always. Shchedrovitsky. I understand, but this is not a position. This is from the field of ornithology. Genisaret. ... the technological view has nothing to do with Comenius, or with the Waldorf school, or with the Soviet school. Shchedrovitsky. Finally, they spoke on the subject. Genisaret. And Zuev is right, and you are right, and Tatyana is right. But then we look: what kind of management we have established - the fifth reform is stalling. And the sixth and the eighth will also slip. Because the whole issue is posed in a different plane - in the managerial one. And there is a logic there. Kovaleva. I want to say one positive thing. Shchedrovitsky. Positive about what? Let's finish the process. Genisaret. … and the next step – you have already made a reflexive reversal by articulating the activity of management and the activity of education. You have shifters. For example, a corporate university is education in the field of management or management in the field of education. What's more important? It's already a two way relationship. Shchedrovitsky. Yes, you will not have any education in the field of management because you cannot make a commitment to students. You can only tell the student stories. Genisaret. Well, you never studied with me, so, thank God, you have no experience in this matter. Shchedrovitsky. Takhir Yusupovich, from your point of view, in the field of education, something can be subjected to technologization, and is it worth it? Bazarov. If we approach the concept of technology intimately... If we talk about the part that is associated with a person who creates a certain method and implements this method, it seems to me that the idea of ​​technology cannot be transferred here from the production process. Shchedrovitsky. Okay, there are some other ideas. But do they really need to be moved? From another sphere, non-production? Bazarov. No, you have to create them. Shchedrovitsky. Can? Or not needed at all? Bazarov. It is necessary and possible. Through the search for samples. Shchedrovitsky. A little more, please. And what to invest in the concept of technology in this area? On the other hand, what will be technlogized? Bazarov. Over the past few days, we have developed the following formula: action #1 based on an act of will (the situation in which this action occurs is given), then, by necessity, an error occurs, from which experience is extracted. According to Alexander Sergeevich *, this part, the very mystery of the emergence of experience from error, is central. This part could be called the word "reflection". The next action - action number 2 - is based on the mind. And in my mind, just central part, the appearance of an error and, perhaps, the creation of appropriate conditions for this and learning from this experience - this part could be subjected to technologization. Shchedrovitsky. Can you find the root again? Bazarov. If this assumption, based on empirical research (including situations related to research, the process of mastering knowledge, skill), is correct, then the central part of the formula is related to the fact that an error occurs, and it is clear when and how it occurs. The work of extracting experience from this error, which is conditionally called the word “reflection” here ... Shchedrovitsky. …can be technologized. That is, it is necessary to technologize the reflection of teachers. Bazarov. Carriers of techniques, techniques, procedures. Shchedrovitsky. It's clear. Or maybe those who have been developing the concept of humanitarian technologies for the last ten years still have some ideas? Zuev. It seems to me that when answering this question, it is necessary to clarify the object of technologization. Shchedrovitsky. I'm talking about this: what can be such an object or object? Zuev. For the time being, I will not speak in a conceptual language, but in a direct one. Something becomes a social technology at the moment when it includes in its complex (?) certain social groups that cannot imagine life without this innovation. Roughly speaking, when we discuss the concept of the middle class, it is completely meaningless to directly discuss the quality and standard of living. You need to make sure… Shchedrovitsky. You remember: experience says that examples get in the way. Zuev. Good. In this sense, the object of technologization is mainly the actions of the author, his application in a wider social space. Shchedrovitsky. What does it mean? Here I created the Center Educational Technologies, what should I technologize in this area? There were two non-responses and two responses. The first is that it is necessary to technologize the product in the form of a testing system, single exam and so on. The second is that it is necessary to technologize the reflection of workers in the sphere itself. Zuev. Well, yes, and then we are moving away from managerial reality, because ... Shchedrovitsky. Why are we leaving? Both, in my opinion, are directly related to managerial reality, in which the subject of technologization stands out. Zuev. No. Managerial reality is restored (?) only if some unique action begins to acquire a permanent character in relation to certain social groups. Shchedrovitsky. What should be technologized from your point of view? Zuev. Promotion of technology in society. Shchedrovitsky. And what does that mean? What does "promotion" mean? Zuev. Depending on the context. If we take the market context, it will be marketing technology, if we take the administrative context - power technology, network context - and so on. Shchedrovitsky. That is, it is necessary to technologize the system of sales of educational services to the population. Zuev. Speaking in industrial terms. Shchedrovitsky. Sales can be on the administrative market. Type, the salary of state employees in exchange for their receipt of educational services. Zuev. When this or that type of education becomes an organic element of social life, then it turns into technology. Just as Ford's findings can only be called technology to the extent that his production supported a certain type of distribution. Along with pricing... Shchedrovitsky. The hint is clear. Urushchadze. I think the staff needs to be technologized. Create instruction. Shchedrovitsky. Instructions for what? What is a teacher? But you know we have teaching methods? They come, they do not look at the children - do one, do two, do three. Urushchadze. We need technology for the situation. Shchedrovitsky. Okay, okay. Afanasiev. It seems to me that in the near future some modifying factors of education are coming, in particular, they can modify the institution of the school. I have in mind, first of all, the factor associated with the deployment of new teaching aids, the so-called "distance" (?) learning. If we consider the prospects, the institution of modern schools will be liquidated. Shchedrovitsky. So what needs to be technologized? Afanasiev. I will try to give a hypothesis. You asked the question: is this production or not production, I answered you that it is not production, but rather a pedagogical infrastructure. In the vision that arises, pedagogical factories through which some material passes can be abolished. In this sense, I can join Glazychev's version, the system of assessment and self-assessment of students and teachers is being technologized. An interactive pedagogical environment is emerging, built not on the principles of production, but on the principles of infrastructure, a certain field on which an individual trajectory is possible. And not from school to school with an education voucher, as previously planned, but, as it were, from piece to piece. And in each of which you can get some system of assessment and self-assessment. Shchedrovitsky. You join Glazychev's version, supplementing, first, self-assessment, that is, interactivity, and second, fixing the network infrastructural nature of the inputs and outputs of the educational process and the educational market. Afanasiev. But I would like to discuss the modifying factor that can lead to the destruction of modern institutions. Shchedrovitsky. They themselves will break because there is nothing left, everything is broken. Better than breaking something else, now build it. Belogorodsky. All the time subject-object relations are considered. With a subject-subject relationship, it is possible to technologize the process of joining, correlating here and now, the situation that is present - this can be technologized. For example, I come to work with some people, I look at how I can join them. These are joined in one way, others in another way. If we take a specific person, then for one the leading modality is an auditory, and the other is a visual, and the third is a kinesthetic (?). ** Razumov. It seems to me that there is a technological map, which is arranged positionally. And in this sense, it is possible to technologize getting into an idea from a position. Shchedrovitsky. Well, you see, if there is already a technological map, then the job is almost done ... In my opinion technological map there are no educational processes. In this situation. And it doesn’t exist because, most likely, no one built it. There was no such task, there was some other task. And if it was, then half the battle would have been done. Replica. I would like to make two strange remarks: all the time in the context of the conversation, the two terms “education” and “training” are confused. Shchedrovitsky. Who are confused? I always say training, education and training - separated by commas. And everyone else, as I keep repeating, is not confused either. Replica. However, I would like to point out that... Shchedrovitsky. … this is one thing, education is another, training is a third, and upbringing is a fourth, which we did not talk about. What if by subject? Replica. The fact is that education is a social technology that is inherent in society as a kind of integrity and has existed for a long time. So if we want to reflect as social technology we need a social reflection, not an individual one. Shchedrovitsky. Thanks a lot. Misha? Flamer. It is necessary to technologize the productive relations of a given area with other areas in the public as a whole. Shchedrovitsky. That is, you join the concept of Glazychev and Afanasiev, who joined him? Flamer. No, because they were talking about the evaluation of the result, and I'm talking about productive relationships, in which other areas also participate, presenting their attitude to what is done within education and what is transmitted to them on behalf of education. Shchedrovitsky. But in the absence of a production view of education, it is not possible to technologize productive connections and relationships, since they do not exist in the concept. Since the sphere of education is the sphere of creativity of elderly women at the age of 40 who do not have education, there is nothing to technologize. And the view of education as a manufacturing sector is the result of a mistake. Flamer. I return to the discussion on the concept of technology and technologization after the speech of Vyacheslav Leonidovich, where I said that it is necessary to discuss the concept of “mode of activity”. And for me, productivity is one of the characteristics of activity, not production. Tupitsyn. My version is that the process of communication between a teacher and a student about learning situations should be technologized. In turn, the learning situation is a situation of difficulty. Both in a positive way, when a solution is found, and in case of student errors. Shchedrovitsky. When you say “technologize the communication process”, what will you technologize in this process? Tupitsyn. This means that certain objects about which communication is built must be singled out and laid down, and the very norms of this communication must be set. Replica. I came up with a version that it is necessary to technologize the process of consuming education products, training and education. Shchedrovitsky. Consumption by whom? In our country, this is not a production area, you remember, it is a creative one. Replica. I can answer with an example. that school, in which I worked, where products were consumed by certain social groups ... Shchedrovitsky. Wait, what products? Replica. Anyway, educational services is a product. Shchedrovitsky. And who consumed it with you there in Vladivostok? Replica. The so-called lower middle class. Based on the needs of these consumers, we conducted a series of studies and built certain norms of interaction with them. And, accordingly, this imposed requirements on the content, on the design, on the results. Shchedrovitsky. Thank you. Vitya? Vitya. Various ways of inclusion and exclusion in the educational infrastructure need to be technologized. This is, as Vyacheslav Leonidovich said, the assessment of the result, and various methods of assessment at the entrance (that is, whether this person will be able to study at this educational institution), and various methods of assessment along the way, which may, in particular, lead to a possible exclusion from this educational situation. Replica. It is necessary to technologize the qualification - the access procedure. Judgment. I have an addition: it is necessary to technologize not only the qualifications for those who are taught, but also those who teach. Shchedrovitsky. Basically there are other ideas? Replica. I would still go back to what Borovikov(?) was talking about. ** In the word "education" the root is "image". And I have always understood education not as a transfer of something, but as an introduction to a certain image. ** It can be said that “technologization of the production of images” is a text that can then be processed (?). Shchedrovitsky. Thank you. Yes, Stepan. Stepan. In the field of education, from my point of view, two transitions are obvious: from high school to higher school and from higher school to *. It seems to me that these zones are something that the field of education can turn around. * And if this technological virus (?) somehow functions there, then it is quite possible that changes will occur with this scheme. Shchedrovitsky. But this is not fundamentally new ... Stepan. We talked about qualifications, but it is not at all due to qualifications that this is possible. Especially considering what Alexander Ivanovich said. Shchedrovitsky. I mean fundamentally different views. You see, some of our participants have a long wick - it takes 40 minutes to burn out. Replica. I have a hypothesis that it is necessary to technologize the way the worldview of students. Shchedrovitsky. Take care of energy. Kovaleva. Still, defending the line that it is possible to set a technological view in such a way that one or another school model, as Vyacheslav Leonidovich said, appears as a technology, one can offer the following version: it is possible to technologize the entire process of implementing this or that anthropological project. Shchedrovitsky. Now there are two questions. Since we understand that the technological form of organization and technologization is a look, then with perseverance and resources, anything can be technologized. Question: is it necessary? Because Neklessa and Genisaretsky did not support this line, it is not necessary now to discount this and consider only the proposed versions of technologization. It is necessary, on the contrary, to leave this frame, now in a completely different form: maybe it is possible to technologize, but maybe not. There is such a tool in the hands - technologization. He can solve some problems. Some cannot decide, it can be applied to something, it cannot be applied to something, to something more effectively, to something less effectively. We are solving two problems: the task of applying this approach and the second - choosing the point of acupuncture. And you, it seems, continue your line ... Kovaleva. No. I have two reasons why this view of technologization might be useful. The first move is that if we put technologization in such a frame as the process of implementing a certain anthropological project, then we can bring to some strict reproducible constructions those intellectual efforts that one way or another flare up at certain historical moments. Because we can treat it like rubbish ... I, in fact, continue the line that we discussed with you on the second wave of innovations. Because you can, of course, say that everything that innovators have done for 20 years is all nonsense and forget it. But for me, such a technological view is important. If we look at their activity as the implementation of some kind of anthropological project - this or that problem is usually reflected in the language of anthropology - then all these under-twisted intuitive things begin to gather, and on this the pedagogical culture develops as a value in itself. There is a development path. Since I look at pedagogical culture as a value in itself, for me this is one of the justifications for the possibility of this move towards technologization. Shchedrovitsky. What is the move to technologization? What will be technologized? Kovaleva. The process of implementing a certain anthropological project will be technologized. There is a certain anthropological project - either it is connected with the fact that everyone needs to be taught to think, or it is connected with the fact that the soul of a child in this family goes through some stages, or it is necessary that sensitive periods be formed, otherwise a person does not realize its essence. Around this there is a different pedagogical activity aimed at its implementation. Inside it has its own characteristics, its own testing, its own checks, its own teacher training - what was offered in the hall. I can look at all this activity from a technological point of view, as at the implementation of this anthropological project. At this moment, I create a situation of pedagogical kinship in culture, when everyone can indicate whose grandson or student he is. And this is where I start all the pieces ... As Oleg Igorevich said, "non-waste intellectual production." Shchedrovitsky. And how many of these anthropological projects? Kovaleva. This can be discussed. For me, for example, the Steiner project is one of the strongest. Now, I can say that 15 such projects are officially considered at the European Forum, of which I am a member. In the international context of European culture. But since only Makarenko got there from Russia, everyone can count it in their own way. We had a lot, but due to the fact that we did not look technologically, everything became garbage. Sukhomlinsky died - after 10 months there was nothing left. And if they looked technologically at his anthropological project, maybe other groups would have screwed it up. Here is such a version. Kovaleva. These are already techniques inside, like the technique of monkeys. I'm still not talking about this scale. I'm talking about the whole process technologically, and already within the process there are techniques, methods. There is, for example, the technique of monkeys, when two children are put side by side, and they cling to each other's hair, and then they understand: for every action there is a reaction, - and calm down. By the way, the only teacher who did this was Steiner. Everything is normal: strong - to the weak, stupid - to the smart, and so on. And he is a mirror. Shchedrovitsky. Any more questions? Glazychev. I have already expressed my position, I will not repeat it. But the question of discussing and analyzing what was called anthropological projects, their critical analysis... Shchedrovitsky. Wait a second. The thesis has been stated and it is necessary to develop an attitude towards it. The thesis is as follows: there is a certain finite number anthropological projects, characteristic, perhaps, for a confessional, perhaps for an ethno-confessional historical situation. And the task is set to technologize pedagogies that provide and support these anthropological projects. Glazychev. I suspect that if you try to implement such a thesis, there will not be a single one left. This is basically an impossible task. Shchedrovitsky. Why? There are specific examples of anthropological projects and the creation of appropriate pedagogies for them. Glazychev. The training of teachers for these pedagogies can be technologized. Shchedrovitsky. But this is considered as one of the elements, because as soon as you start to technologize the training of teachers, it turns out that you need to technologize five more different things ... Kovaleva. Work with parents needs to be technologized ... Shchedrovitsky. This is such an ambitious task. The world, as Oleg Igorevich told us, is fragmenting, and there is pluralism in it. This pluralism is a value. And one of the mechanisms for maintaining this pluralism is the free choice (either by people, or by families, or by some large communities) of anthropological projects and pedagogies in a certain menu. But for this, technologization must be done. So, I decided that all my seven children should be raised in different anthropological projects to see what would come of it. Why not? Replica. I can say that this is how they * will build it. Shchedrovitsky. You are joking, you are joking. Zuev. Tan, I have a question. Can I understand you this way: as far as I understand, there are two versions of the move for technologization - technologization itself pedagogical work and technologization of the presence of education… Shchedrovitsky. Look, no, because there will have to technologize a lot of things. Including what you were talking about. Zuev. But the initial orientation towards technologization is still connected with the technologization of pedagogical work or socio-cultural ... Shchedrovitsky. That is, they literally ask you the following: where do you start, at least in relation to one project, this titanic work? Kovaleva. This must be discussed separately. Zuev. I have a base... Kovaleva. This is some kind of special, systemic ... This, perhaps, is what we call the technology of the New Generation. Zuev. The thing is that these 15 projects that you are talking about, as far as I know, are the result of some political agreement in the European Community. What reality are you dealing with? Kovaleva. That's how I answered Petr Georgievich - depending on who makes up this typology. For example, I would start not with such a healthy task, but just using the pieces of innovative experience of the first 10 years to restore what they implemented regarding some kind of anthropological project. Zuev. In what frame are you restoring? On the issue of transferring experience into technology. Shchedrovitsky. Here, after all, it is not clear: lowering the frame is better or worse. Because, as you said at the beginning, this is the idea. Kovaleva. These are two levels of the task. Shchedrovitsky. Moreover, in fact, your task looks different. You speak from a certain culture, from a certain language, from a certain historical situation. And you will not have 15, you will have N, they must be named. Moreover, you can say that you have already tried to do something, such as Tolstoy's school. And there is a separate pedagogical task- recovery pedagogical system, restoration of a portrait based on the found bones of the skull. True, as Lekonin (?) likes to say, there were mostly children from the neighboring village in Tolstoy's school, * his own. How you restore it is not clear. Kovaleva. We will alienate it. Shchedrovitsky. But then a situation arises. And when you start to lower the bar, interest decreases. But Zuev's question is probably meaningful. He says, suppose where would you start? You say: you need to start with twenty things at once ... Kovaleva. From the typology of anthropological projects. Shchedrovitsky. But this is not in the technologization itself, it is in its meta-project. Zuev. The question was that it is necessary to start technologization from some vector (?). Shchedrovitsky. And it's the same thing. Replica. With the allocation of the type of project as anthropological. Shchedrovitsky. This is what they are talking about. Any other opinions?

On March 24, in Tomsk, on the basis of MAOU secondary school No. 40, within the framework of public discussions “The effectiveness of the introduction of the Federal State Educational Standard, minimization of economic, legal and social risks associated with the implementation of the NSOT and NPF”, Kovaleva T.M. delivered a lecture “Individualization of education”. - Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor of the Department of Pedagogy of the Moscow Pedagogical state university, President of the Interregional Tutor Association of Russia, expert of the IPOP "Evrika".

The main goal of Tatyana Kovaleva's speech was, in the words of the speaker herself, to “open the door” to the culture of individualization of education, as well as to the space that can ensure the implementation of the Federal State Educational Standard through an individual line of education. The line of culture of learning activity should be raised and it can be used in all learning materials. such is the speaker's conviction.

The lecturer focused the listeners' attention on the difference between the principle of individualization of education and the individual approach, which in the Soviet school switched to a differentiated approach to education. Tatyana Kovaleva stated that the fundamental difference between the discussed standards of the new generation is the access to the student's right to form his own content of education, adequate to his personality structure. The new standard is the definition of boundaries between frame and object knowledge. When developing a new model, it is advisable to proceed from the standard as a system of framework restrictions, within which there can be a significant number of different models of the educational process.

Three myths about individualization:

1. Individualization is a different way for different children, an approach that takes into account their characteristics.

2.Individualization is an individual work.

3.Individualization is individualism or selfishness.

Tatyana Kovaleva gave the concepts of individualization, subjectivity and subject. Particular attention was paid in the report to the concept of subjectivity and related concepts. Individualization in the educational process is the construction of individual educational programs. An individual educational program cannot rely only on subjectivity. Each educational institution should switch to an individual educational program, which should include, in addition to educational activities, the subjectivity of each student.

Individualization is a process in which the child himself becomes active in choosing the content of his education.

Individualization is a new approach to education, where the position of the student changes - he becomes the subject, not the object of education.

According to the lecturer, the principle of individualization should play a special role in the teaching staff.

Speaking about the structure of the basic educational plan, Tatyana Kovaleva proposed to strengthen it by including extracurricular activities directly in the educational plan of the educational institution without specifying the maximum allowable load.

The educational program of the educational institution, based on the age capabilities of schoolchildren, should contain a list of the main activities of students at different levels of education and a list of the main tasks solved by the subjects of the educational process.

GEF (individual educational (educational) program)

Primary school students should be formed common ways of action:

Self-control;

self-reflection;

Self-planning.

This is what should be the basis of the elementary school standard.

For such education, the introduction of only the position of a tutor is clearly insufficient - a new organization of the entire educational process is needed - it must be organized as a process of providing the child with various educational opportunities and organizing the child's choice of different offers their individual direction of education and the way it is received - an adult becomes the organizer of such an educational space for the child and accompanies him in making a decision. You can call such an adult both a teacher and a tutor - in any case, this requires a different professionalism from the teacher than the one that is now.

Speaking about the structure of the tutor activity standard, Kovaleva T.M. formulated three special functions and meaningfully revealed each of them:

− requirements for the structure educational program(normative terms, labor intensity, the ratio of its individual elements, the goals of the stages of education, the characteristics of ages, types of activities, the tasks of students and teachers, the educational plan, the composition and characteristics of educational areas, the type of educational program)

− requirements for the results of mastering educational programs (subject knowledge, key competencies, social experience)

− requirements for the conditions for the implementation of educational programs (the fundamental core of educational subjects, the educational process, informatization, logistics, personnel and financial.

As the lecturer clarified, individualization is all about building an individual educational program. This is what makes it possible to introduce tutor support.

IN modern school it is necessary to introduce tutor support of the process of individualization.

Tatyana Kovaleva defined tutoring as a special pedagogical way work that accompanies the entry of the child himself to an individual educational program, and thereby implements individualization in education. The lecturer distinguished between the concepts of "individual approach" and "individualization". An individual approach is an approach that assumes that adults select the content and technologies of education and upbringing in accordance with the characteristics of the child. The stages of tutor support were also identified: manifestation and fixation (activity, cognitive process, initiative), support, development (the moment of qualitative change). Technological stages are identified and disclosed, which include:

Fixation of manifestations (creation of "excessive, unstructured educational environment", observation);

Support (navigation, promotion of resources);

Development (promotion of qualitative changes, scaling).

The report draws attention to the fact that the creation of an "excessive educational environment" has three vectors of development: cultural-subject, social, anthropological.

According to Tatyana Kovaleva, the process of individualization of education is the institutionalization of the country.

Tatyana Kovaleva in her lecture also spoke about individual cards that are used in tutoring technology and, in fact, are cultural medium, presented the periodization of the individualization process, which the tutor scientific community recently presented to colleagues (one of the advantages of the lecturer was the lack of linking this periodization to a person's age).

Irina Tetenchuk, OGBU RCRO,

head of the analytical group of the Tomsk region

Kovaleva Tatiana Mikhailovna
Doctor of Pedagogy, Professor of the Department of Pedagogy, Moscow Pedagogical State University, Moscow
[email protected] mail. en

Personal resource map as a didactic means of implementing the anthropological approach in education

annotation
The article analyzes the role of the student's personal-resource map in the learning process as a realization of L.S. Vygotsky's idea of ​​mediation. Two directions are discussed in working with such maps: within the framework of specially designed new educational subjects and in the process of tutor support of individual educational programs for schoolchildren.

Keywords
d idactic tool, personal resource map, individual educational program, tutor support.

The content of modern domestic education is focused today, first of all, on the activity concept (as can be seen in the text of the Federal State state ABOUT educational Standard, which began to be implemented this year in the primary education system). Educational subjects in this concept are built, first of all, as the development of general methods of activity and thereby ensure the formation of the subject of activity; the subjectivity of human perception itself is considered in this case only as a specificity of mastering the general method.

When constructing educational subjects in the anthropological approach, which is also beginning to become increasingly relevant today in Russian education on the contrary, the experience of one's own individual (subjective) development becomes the leading one, and the general cultural forms of development become "background".

To present now these two different strategies (the formation of subjectivity and the formation of subjectivity) as two sides of a single process of human development and education in the context of the anthropological approach, let us turn to the idea of ​​mediation by L.S. Vygotsky.

The idea of ​​mediation is, in our opinion, the key idea in the entire cultural and historical concept of L.S. Vygotsky, since it is on this basis that the entire logical analysis of the relationship between higher and lower mental functions is built, and the psychological mechanisms of the transformation of the natural psyche into a cultural one are considered. L.S. Vygotsky considers the sign as a universal psychological means for implementing the idea of ​​mediation.

Passing into didactic reality, one can interpret the psychological theses of L. S. Vygotsky as follows.

Educational subjects should be built both as forming general methods of activity (and thus actually forming the “tool side” of knowledge), and at the same time as forming symbolic activity, that is, connected primarily with the personal meanings of students.

Vygotsky considered word(it is the core tool of the whole theory of learning). His students are psychologists and didactics (for example, many authors of the "Developing Education" system - S.Yu. Kurganov, V.S. Levin, Z.N. Novlyanskaya, V.V. Repkin, etc.), built educational subjects and developed author's courses, trying to combine in them the development of not only the external, but also the internal semantic function of the word. "Free writing", "Associative letter".

It seems to us that as a fundamentally new didactic tool, which also combines both instrumental and symbolic functions, and at the same time adequate to the modern understanding of the openness of education, its variability various forms and expanding the boundaries of the learning process itself, can act map . Unlike many other similar didactic tools (drawings, drawings, tables, etc.), the map has three characteristics inherent in it:

topic (the presence of various spatial objects),

orientation (central and remote from the center position of objects),

scale (an indication of the proportionality or disproportion of objects).

As we have already pointed out earlier, on the example of a map, we can distinguish two functions: gun and sign. The tool function of the map allows you to adapt the world around you to the interests of a person and helps a person “fit” into this world (political, geographical, historical and other maps). But the map can also become a personally significant psychological tool that allows a person to see himself and his action "in a new way": on a different scale and in a different context.

Thus, in this case, the map, as well as the word, begins to act as a generalization for a person, since through it he can see the place of his action in a wider context, see its partiality in relation to the Whole, understand the specifics of his own action in the world of the General.

Referring to the process of constructing personal-resource (anthropic) maps as an important didactic tool that implements the idea of ​​mediation and makes the transition from lower to higher mental functions (and thus setting a step in human development); we consider work with a resource map in the system of modern education as a fundamentally significant moment at all levels schooling.

Thus, mapping (working with a map) can become a modern didactic tool for the joint work of a teacher and a student, reflecting the possible directions of the individual educational movement of the student, the space of his self-determination and goals, educational resources environment. It is possible to build different types of maps (maps of cognitive interest, educational routes etc.). The most complete range of educational tasks, opportunities and movement vectors can be presented in a personal resource map.

It is possible to carry out such purposeful work with a schoolchild to build resource maps of his own education both within the framework of specially designed new subjects (for example, in the course of implementing a new standard, it was supposed to develop subject"Individual project"), and in the process of tutor support of individual educational programs for schoolchildren.

Tutor support of an individual educational program (IEP) is a method that involves identifying the educational request (interest) of the tutor, organizing the design of actions for its implementation, assistance in finding resources, assistance in the implementation of the project of his own educational movement in the socio-cultural educational environment: organizing reflection and designing the next step in education (from the draft professional standard for tutoring).

This work has been possible since 2008, when the registry teaching professions the profession of a tutor was officially approved as a teacher accompanying individual educational programs of students. Orders of the Ministry of Health and Social Development of the Russian Federation dated May 5, 2008 No. 216n and No. 217n (registered with the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation on May 22, 2008 No. 11731 and No. 11725, respectively) approved professional qualification groups for positions of workers of general, higher and additional vocational education, among which the position of "tutor" was fixed as a teacher accompanying the process of individual education at school, university, in the systems of additional and continuing professional education.

It is necessary to immediately distinguish position and profession of a tutor. C today in educational institutions after the approval of professional qualification groups for positions of workers in general, higher and additional professional education, among which the position of “tutor” is fixed, there are real opportunities for the introduction of a separate pedagogical professional position in the school - a tutor.

But we can also talk about the implementation of the goals and objectives of tutor support by existing teachers, psychologists, class teachers, head teachers or high school coordinators. In this case, it would be more correct to speak about new profession tutor, but about the tutor competence that a teacher and psychologist of a modern school should have.

Implementation by any teacher tutor functions is carried out as follows: on the one hand, coordination is ensured of all the diverse structures that set as their goal the implementation of assistance to the pupil or student in conscious choice, and, on the other hand, the problems and difficulties of the self-education process that arise in schoolchildren and students are discussed, conditions are created for a real individualization of the learning process. It is thanks to the implementation of tutor functions that it becomes possible to monitor the dynamics of the process of becoming aware of the choice of each student, and not just fixing his chaotic movement in the external variety of forms, for example, pre-profile training and profile education.

The product of joint action at each stage of the work of the tutor and tutor is the completion of a certain specially structured resource card as the basis for the subsequent implementation of an individual project, research or educational program. The resource card is used at all levels of tutor support in primary, teenage and high school, as well as in the university and the field of additional education.

Thus, today, in the conditions of modern education, a tutor or a teacher with tutor competence can help a child work with a "personal-resource" map as the basis for further building his own individual educational program, in fact, at every stage of schooling:

Velementary school - mapping their cognitive interests,

Vadolescent school - mapping various projects and research work,

Vsenior school - mapping pre-professional interests.

In conclusion, we can say that the map, being, in our opinion, no less culturally significant didactic tool than the word, has great potential in deploying further psychological and pedagogical research that helps to implement the anthropological approach in modern education.

Literature

V.M. Rosin. Philosophy of subjectivity. - M .: APK and PPRO, 2011.

L.S. Vygotsky. Tool and sign in the development of the child. - Collected works: in 6 volumes - M .: Pedagogy, 1984

B.D. Elkonin. Mediation. Action. Development. - Izhevsk, ERGO, 2010

T.M. Kovaleva. Personal-resource mapping as a means of implementing the idea of ​​mediation // 12th International Readings in memory of L.S. Vygotsky. Materials of the Readings of the Russian State Humanitarian University (14-17. 11.2011) .- M .: RGGU, 2011

_____

Tatiana M. Kovaleva
Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor of Pedagogy Department, Moscow Pedagogical State University, Moscow
[email protected]

Personal- resource map as didact means of realization anthropological content in education

This article is devoted to the role of the personal resource map in modern educational process. The main idea of ​​this article based on the theory of theoretical thinking by L.S. Vygotsky.

key words: didactic means , personal- resourcemap , individual educational program, tutor

Correspondence postgraduate studies - until 1988, full-time postgraduate studies 1988-89, at the Department of Methods of Mathematics of the Moscow State Pedagogical University. V.I. Lenin.
Full-time targeted doctoral studies at the Institute of Theory of Education and Pedagogy of the Russian Academy of Education: 1995-98.
Higher: Moscow State Pedagogical University (MGPI named after V.I. Lenin), Faculty of Mathematics, specialty "mathematics", 1982.

Topic of Ph.D. thesis

"Organization and content of self-training in mathematics in school full day»" (1990)

Topic of doctoral dissertation

"Theoretical basis formation innovative school" (2000)

Publications

1) Formation of a new profession of a tutor in Russian education / Educational Issues (VAK). - Moscow: State University - graduate School Economics, 2011.-№2.- 1.2 pp. (pp. 163-180), 1300 copies.
2) Effective school: success factors. Proceedings of the International Conference. - Kyiv: Kiev University named after Boris Grinchenko, 2011. - 0.5 pp. (pp. 1-8), 300 copies.
3) The principle of individualization in modern education as important aspect sociocultural modernization Russian society// The role of education and pedagogical science in the socio-cultural modernization of Russian society. Materials of the scientific-theoretical conference ITIP RAO (24.10.2011). - M .: ITIP RAO, 2011. - 0.3 pp.
4) The problem of subjectivity in modern didactics// Letters to The Emission.Offline Letters: electronic scientific journal. – January 2012, ART 1730 . - St. Petersburg, 2012 URL: http://www.emissia.org/offline/2012/1730.htm. – State Reg. 0421200031. - ISSN 1997-8588. – [accessed 04/13/2012]
5) Personal resource map as a didactic means of implementing the anthropological approach in education // Letters to the Emission.Offline Letters: electronic scientific journal. – February 2012, ART 1730 . - St. Petersburg, 2012 URL: http://www.emissia.org/offline/2012/1730.htm. – State Reg. 0421200031. - ISSN 1997-8588. – [date of access 05/13/2012]
6) Profession "tutor". Collect. monograph, M.-Tver: "SFK-office". - 15.375 p.l. -300 copies (co-authored with E.I. Kobyshcha, S.Yu. Popova (Smolik), A.A. Terov, M.Yu. Cheredilina).
7) Modern pedagogical science: the problem of subjectivity. Submitted to print 2013.
8) Implementation of the principle of openness in the construction and application of educational technologies
Domestic and foreign pedagogy. 2014. No. 4 (19). pp. 63-71.
9) Anthropological view of modern didactics
Council of Rectors. 2014. No. 5. S. 53-55.

State and departmental awards

Honorary title: "Honorary Worker of General Education"
(MON RF) - 2011
Honorary diploma of the Tomsk region - 2011
Honorary Diploma of the Academic Council of the Moscow State Pedagogical University - 2010
Medal "For Special Merit in Developmental Education" (MARO) 2008

Achievements and promotions

Chairman of the Program Committee of the annual international tutor conferences at Moscow State Pedagogical University, scientific director of the Golden Section School
Head of the interregional research group of the MTA for the development of a professional standard for tutoring (2010-2012);
Head of the project "Tutor model of the Skolkovo school" - laureate of the international competition -2012,
She was an expert of the Russian Humanitarian Science Foundation, the project "Development of Education in Russia" of the Institute " open society"(Soros Foundation); a network of federal experimental sites of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (Institute of Educational Policy "Evrika").
IN this moment is a member of the Commission of the Ministry of Education and Science on the development of innovative infrastructure in the field of education (No. 314 of April 29, 2013).